briefing book: bwc sixth review conference 2006opcw organisation for the prohibition of chemical...
TRANSCRIPT
-
MATTERSVERTIC RESEARCH REPORTS • NUMBER 6 • OCTOBER 2006
A new strategy: strengthening the biological weapons regime through
modular mechanisms
Verification Matters 6
A new strategy: strengthening the biological weapons regime through m
odular mechanism
s
-
MATTERSVERTIC RESEARCH REPORTS • NUMBER 6 • OCTOBER 2006
A new strategy: strengthening the biological weapons regime through
modular mechanisms
Verification Matters 6
A new strategy: strengthening the biological weapons regime through m
odular mechanism
s
-
A new strategy: strengthening the biological weapons regime through
modular mechanisms
-
�
MATTERSThe Verification Research, Training and Information Centre (VERTIC) promotes effective and efficient verification as a means of ensuring confidence in the implementation of international agreements and intra-national agreements with international involvement. VERTIC aims to achieve its mission through research, training, dissemination of information, and interaction with the relevant political, diplomatic, technical, scientific and non-govern-mental communities. Founded in 1986, VERTIC is an independent, non-profit-making, non-governmental organization.
International Verification Consultants Network
Richard Butler AO (arms control and disarmament verification); Dr Roger Clark (seismic verification); Jayantha Dhanapala (arms control and disarmament); Dr John Gee (chemical verification); Dr Jozef Goldblat (arms control and disarmament agreements); Dr Edward Ifft (arms control and disarmament agreements); Dr Patricia Lewis (arms control and disarmament agreements); Peter Marshall CMG OBE (seismic verification); Dr Robert Mathews (chemical and biological disarmament); Dr Colin McInnes (Northern Ireland decommissioning); Dr Graham Pearson (chemical and biological disarmament); Dr Arian Pregenzer (co-operative monitoring); Dr Rosalind Reeve (envi-ronmental law).
Current funders
Esmée Fairbairn Foundation; Ford Foundation; Global Opportunities Fund (GOF) administered by the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO); John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation; Ploughshares Foundation; Polden-Puckham Charitable Foundation; Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust
Board of Directors
Gen. Sir Hugh Beach MA, MSc, DCL (Hon.) (co-Chair); Dr Owen Greene (co-Chair); Dr Molly Anderson; Duncan Brack BA, MSc; Lee Chadwick MA; Nicholas A. Sims, BSc (Econ); Susan Willett BA (Hons), MPhil; Dr David Wolfe
Series editor: Michael CrowleyContributing editor/project manager: Angela WoodwardSub-editor: Andrew MashDesign and production: Richard Jones
Acknowledgements
VERTIC wishes to thank those individuals, organizations and states that provided constructive comments on the ideas put forward in VERTIC’s 2004 report for the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission, which is the forerunner of this report (Trevor Findlay and Angela Woodward, Enhancing BWC Implementation: A Modular Approach, Paper No. 23, WMD Commission, October 2004). These helpful comments informed VERTIC’s consideration and elaboration of the modular mechanisms expounded in this report. VERTIC takes responsibility for any errors or omissions in this report.
The Verification Research, Training and Information Centre (VERTIC), Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4JX, United Kingdom
Phone +44 (0)20 7065 0880 Fax +44 (0)20 7065 0890Email [email protected] Website www.vertic.org
Printed in the United Kingdom by Linkway CCP Communica-tions Limited
ISSN 1474-8045 © VERTIC 2006
VERTIC RESEARCH REPORTS NUMBER 6 • OCTOBER 2006
-
�
ContentsAcronyms and abbreviations ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5
Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 7
National authorities ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 9
BWC staff ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 10
Convention implementation advisers ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 12
A scientific and technical advisers’ network ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 13
A legal advisers’ network ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 14
A confidence-building measures unit ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 15
A BW investigation and inspection mechanism .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 17
The Review Conference and beyond ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 18
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 20
The biological weapons regime ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 21
The historical context .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 23
The context for the Sixth Review Conference ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 25
National authorities and secretariat staff ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 30
The current state of play ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 32
A network of national authorities and contact points .................................................................................................................................................................................. 35
A support staff function under BWC staff ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 42
-
�Implementation support mechanisms ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 50
Convention implementation advisers ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 52
A scientific and technical advisers’ network ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 55
A legal advisers’ network ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 57
A confidence-building measures unit ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 63
A BW investigation and inspection mechanism ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 71
Beyond the Secretary-General’s mechanism: inspections under the BWC? ........................................................................................................... 76
The Sixth Review Conference and beyond ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 81
Proposals for the Review Conference ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 82
Beyond the Sixth Review Conference ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 83
Endnotes ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 85
-
�
Acronyms and abbreviationsAHG Ad Hoc Group
BW biological weapons
BWC Biological Weapons Convention
CBD Convention on Biological Diversity
CBMs Confidence-Building Measures
CTBT Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
CTBTO Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organization
CWC Chemical Weapons Convention
ECOSOC United Nations Economic and Social Council
EU European Union
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization
GICHD Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining
GPC General Purpose Criterion
IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency
Interpol International Criminal Police Organization
LAN Legal advisers’ network
NPT Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
OIE World Organisation for Animal Health (formerly Office International des Epizooties)
OPBW Organization for the Prohibition of Biological Weapons
OPCW Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
PTS Provisional Technical Secretariat
-
�SAP Scientific advisory panel
STAN Scientific and technical advisers’ network
UNCTC United Nations Counter-Terrorism Committee
UNDDA United Nations Department for Disarmament Affairs
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
UNGAR United Nations General Assembly Resolution
UNMOVIC United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission
UNSCOM United Nations Special Commission
UNSCR United Nations Security Council Resolution
VEREX Ad hoc group of governmental experts (Verification Experts)
VERTIC Verification Research, Training and Information Centre
WCO World Customs Organization
WHO World Health Organization
WMDC Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission (Blix Commission)
-
�
Executive SummaryIn December 2004 the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission (WMDC) published the study, Enhancing
BWC Implementation: A Modular Approach, which was prepared by the Verification Research, Training and
Information Centre (VERTIC). In the study VERTIC identifies a range of mechanisms that could improve
the implementation of the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC).
This new VERTIC study updates the 2004 WMDC study and assesses the possible mandates for, and the
responsibilities and requirements of, the modular mechanisms that have been identified to strengthen the
biological weapons regime.
VERTIC proposes states parties adopt a modular approach to strengthening the convention. Seven modular
mechanisms are proposed:
1. The establishment of a national authority and contact points in each state party for implementation of the
convention;
2. The continuation of the BWC staff arrangement under the United Nations Department for Disarmament
Affairs (UNDDA) and a modest expansion in its functions and responsibilities;
3. The establishment of convention implementation advisers to co-ordinate advice and assistance to states
parties across all articles of the BWC;
4. The creation of a scientific and technical advisers’ network (STAN) to consider, review and communicate to
states parties practical ways of addressing any issues arising from scientific and technological developments
that effect the convention and its implementation;
5. The creation of a legal advisers’ network (LAN) to help all states parties to improve their national laws to
implement the convention;
6. The creation of a confidence-building measures (CBMs) unit to increase the number of returns from states
parties and to improve the quality of the information in the CBMs; and
-
�7. The establishment of a group of experts to consider the issues related to investigations and inspections under
the BWC.
VERTIC believes the weaknesses in the implementation of the convention are well known to all states
parties. Addressing those weakness, and strengthening implementation of the BWC, is now of critical impor-
tance not just to the states parties but to all humanity. States parties are agreed that the use of microbial or
other biological agents or toxins in any way and under any circumstances that is not consistent with prophy-
lactic, protective or other peaceful purposes is banned under Article I. Moreover, the treaty states that the use
of biological or toxin weapons would be repugnant to the conscience of mankind and that no effort should be
spared to minimize this risk (preamble).
As scientific and technological developments expand across a wide range of fields, there is ever greater poten-
tial for states, terrorist groups or individuals to abuse peaceful scientific advances for nefarious purposes. These
capabilities are spreading globally and at an ever increasing pace. The scope of the convention under its Gen-
eral Purpose Criterion (GPC) in Article I is sufficient to cover all these developments. The convention is not,
however, a living organism with its own immune system, able to adapt to new risks and threats. It is a living
treaty that requires its states parties to act on its behalf to ensure that prohibitions are maintained and the obli-
gations undertaken are implemented.
VERTIC maintains that a legally binding additional agreement to the BWC is necessary to provide a com-
prehensive verification, compliance and implementation framework for the convention in the twenty-first
century. Reaching such an agreement is not, however, politically feasible at this time. It is now time for every-
one to embrace a different course of action in order to strengthen the convention.
States parties cannot afford the luxury of believing they have a few more years to address the threats posed
to the convention. Nor can they maintain the pretence of believing that their failure to reach agreement in 2001
on the verification protocol was the fault of a single state party, and can, or will, be rectified when political con-
ditions change. All states parties had a hand in the failure of the verification protocol. Every state party must
now commit itself to a new strategy to strengthen the convention and put previous disagreements behind them.
Effective implementation of the convention is required to prevent the use of biological weapons, to prevent
any state party from developing, producing or stockpiling such weapons, and to prevent the proliferation of
these weapons to any actor. Implementation of the convention is a national responsibility and every state party
should recommit itself to achieving effective implementation of all obligations under the convention in 2006.
-
� The modular mechanisms designed by VERTIC are intended to assist implementation nationally, regionally
and internationally. The approach suggested by VERTIC is pragmatic: the proposals in this report each stand
alone on their own merits. Of the seven modular mechanisms proposed for adoption, any one of them would
strengthen the convention. Each of them can stand alone and make an effective contribution to the efforts of
states parties to achieve biological disarmament. Together, they offer synergistic benefits and interconnections
that would be of even greater benefit. States parties are therefore encouraged to examine each modular mech-
anism on its own, but also to look for connections between the proposals. Small connections between them
and the acceptance of synergies across the modular mechanisms will reap much larger rewards for implemen-
tation of the convention.
National authoritiesThe BWC is now almost alone in neither having recognized national entities or contact points in states parties,
nor possessing any kind of agreed secretariat or implementation support to facilitate states parties in the imple-
mentation of the convention. The principal objective of any national authority would be to take responsibility
for the implementation of the convention in the state party. Given the dual-use nature of the materials, equip-
ment and technology required for the development of biological weapons, that would include liaison with
industry and civil society, as much as with government departments and agencies. The suggested functions of
a national authority include:
• promoting the activities required to ensure national compliance;
• ensuring transparency in national implementation;
• liaising with other national authorities and international organizations that work on BW-related issues;
• providing information to assist states parties to comply with all their BWC obligations; and
• providing contact details of individuals or ministries in states parties that can provide technical assistance
or advice.
The rationale for a national authority is that it helps states parties to comply with their obligations under the
BWC. That is why the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) requires the establishment of a national
authority and why under the BWC protocol a similar requirement for a national authority was uncontroversial.
-
10 Establishing a network of national authorities would share the burden of any assistance programme and
permit national authorities to refer to specific experts on particular subjects. A network of national contact
points de facto already exists among certain states parties; whether it is through the European Union’s BWC
e-task force developing thinking among its 25 member states for the Sixth Review Conference, the contacts
Australia and Indonesia have developed in the Asia-Pacific region in the course of their regional seminars in
2004 and 2005, or the contacts between like-minded states, desk officers responsible for the BWC are well known
to each other. Developing a central list of these contact points via the website created by BWC staff is simply
an exercise in greater transparency.
The national authorities’ network will be able to share information, develop and promote good practice,
act as a low-key form of consultation and co-operation between states parties, and liaise with other interna-
tional organizations and bodies. As envisaged in the 2004 report, in the absence of an international verification
organization, a national authorities’ network will provide much needed mutual support and assistance to
states parties. It also requires minimal effort from states parties to develop in 2006 and could be established
without taking on additional financial burdens.
BWC staffThe states parties to the BWC rely on the activities of the three Depositary governments—Russia, the UK
and the US—and the continued willingness and ability of the United Nations Secretary-General to carry out
important activities that support the operation of the convention on their behalf. Recognizing that certain terms
for describing treaty support mechanisms may be misconstrued or have political overtones for some states parties in
the BWC context, this report uses the term BWC staff to refer to the current and future (proposed) arrangements to
provide institutional support to the convention. This term is used because it reflects current practice: the BWC
staff employed under the rubric of the UNDDA have been in place for at least three years. This arrangement
should be continued and expanded by states parties in 2006. Building on the recommendations made by
VERTIC in the 2004 WMDC study, the functions of the BWC staff will be administrative and facilitative.
Administering and facilitating the decisions of the states parties, however, is insufficient on its own. National
and international contact points are the prerequisite for more effective implementation of the convention.
Under its administrative role the following functions can be envisaged:
-
11• providing support for all meetings in the BWC framework;
• liaising with and facilitating the work of the Depositaries;
• handling the collection, collation and distribution of CBM declarations;
• following up decisions by states parties made at meetings of states parties;
• maintaining the UN BWC website; and
• implementing other tasks assigned by states parties.
Under its facilitation role the BWC staff might undertake the following functions:
• acting as a contact point for all states parties on BWC issues;
• acting as a contact point for signatory states and other states on BWC issues and, if requested, providing
information on accession and ratification issues and liaising with the Depositaries;
• liaising with other intergovernmental organizations and bodies such as the Food and Agriculture Organiza-
tion (FAO), Interpol, the Office of the UN Secretary-General, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical
Weapons (OPCW), the UN 1540 Committee, the UN Counter-Terrorism Committee (UNCTC), the World
Health Organization (WHO), the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), and other appropriate bodies;
• maintaining a website and links to states with useful information;
• facilitating a virtual convention implementation advisers’ network to promote the convention and its imple-
mentation, including efforts to achieve universality;
• representing the interests of states parties collectively in day-to-day relations with the UN and other bodies;
and
• facilitating the provision of simple technical assistance to states that are having difficulty implementing
treaty provisions, such as the CBMs, or matching states parties willing to provide assistance with those that
require it.
The current arrangement with regard to BWC staff has proved an asset to states parties. The financial cost of
existing BWC staff is known and has not been a heavy burden on states parties. Any extra BWC staff estab-
lished to support the work between the sixth and seventh review conferences could evolve from existing arrange-
ments. This has the advantage of simplicity and, not unimportantly, familiarity for states parties.
-
1�Convention implementation advisersThere is a need for a body to co-ordinate the implementation advice and assistance provided to all states parties,
to assist them to implement their various treaty obligations, by a range of actors including other states parties
and international and regional organizations. Such assistance goes beyond legal assistance on national imple-
mentation to include such areas as customs and law enforcement, the safety and security of pathogens, some
forms of biodefence (compatible with nonproliferation objectives) and consequence management advice and
assistance in the case of a BW attack. There are existing models for discrete teams acting on specific topics in
both the OPCW and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that offer advice to states parties through
various offices and bodies as well as in agreed action plans and through the transmission of information to all
states parties. The convention implementation advisers would:
• Co-ordinate offers and requests for assistance across all sections of the BWC, including specific advice on
legal, science and technology issues and confidence-building measures through the LAN, STAN and the
CBM unit. Possible sub-teams on the destruction of agents and toxins (for acceding states parties), redirec-
tion assistance for former weapons scientists, biosecurity issues, preparation and training for consequence
management in the event of biological weapons (BW) use, emergency assistance co-ordination, legal issues
relating to investigation of biological and toxin weapons use, and peaceful co-operation issues such as bio-
safety, Good Manufacturing Practice and Good Laboratory Practice could also be considered, as well as
other areas states parties might identify;
• Link activities with other advisers in relevant organizations such as the 1992 Convention on Biological Diver-
sity (CBD), the FAO, Interpol, the OIE, the OPCW, the UN 1540 Committee, the UNCTC, the WHO,
and others;
• Address any concerns about terrorism and potential use of biological or toxin weapons by non-state actors
through a specific advisory team on issues related to BW terrorism;
• Address all issues of relevance across the convention to promote compliance with all obligations at the
operational level; and
• Use the existing BWC staff website to develop specific sections or pages on implementation advice on all
aspects of the BWC.
-
1� A network of implementation advisers will take time to develop. The network will therefore have to start from small beginnings, develop based on actual requests for information or advice from states parties, and expand once it has proved its worth. The network would be based on advisers from states parties—or those that may be appointed by states parties for specific periods of time or tasks, thus it would be a small, non-permanent and ‘virtual’ body.
A scientific and technical advisers’ networkThe rapid developments in the life sciences are well documented. The need to ensure that the scope of the convention is sufficient to cover all scientific developments is also well known. It is one thing for states parties to determine once every five years that the convention is sufficiently comprehensive to cover all developments in the biological and other sciences, and quite another to communicate to states parties how various risks posed by peaceful scientific development should—and must—be addressed in national regulations, administrative undertakings, or new legislation as required. The scope of the envisaged science and technology advisers’ network would not be limited to Article I of the BWC. The STAN could play an important role in communicating scientific and technical issues across a range of articles, including Articles VI and VII with respect to detection technologies and the work of other organizations. It functions would include:
• Reviewing scientific and technical developments of relevance to the convention and all its articles;• Acting as a forum to bring together scientific and technical advisers from states parties;• Collating information of relevance to states parties on scientific and technical developments and making
it available to all states parties through a science and technology database or other information clearing-house mechanism;
• Reviewing reports or agreements by other organizations on scientific and technological issues and bringing them to the attention of all states parties;
• Facilitating the delivery of advice, information and assistance on how to address scientific developments that may pose a risk to the convention; and
• Bringing together scientific and technical advisers from states parties at international, regional, or other levels to give their views on how scientific and technological developments may pose a risk to or benefit the
convention and its states parties.
-
1� Membership of the STAN would not be fixed. Nor would the STAN exist solely as a tangible body that
convenes a certain number of times between review conferences. As a network, rather than an organization
or panel, the STAN offers much greater flexibility. States parties could nominate their scientific and technical
advisers, or offer a contact point for such advisers, to the BWC staff in Geneva. Through the existing website
of the BWC run from Geneva the STAN could act as a repository for information on scientific issues of rele-
vance to the convention. If a member of the BWC staff was a scientist, that individual could facilitate the work
of the STAN. Its members could convene separately on the margins of meetings of states parties or sub-sets
of members might meet at the regional level as appropriate.
A legal advisers’ networkThe obligations under Article IV of the convention are clear: each state party must ‘take any necessary measures
to prohibit and prevent the development, production, stockpiling, acquisition or retention of the agents, toxins,
weapons, equipment and means of delivery specified in Article I of the Convention, within the territory of such
State, under its jurisdiction or under its control anywhere’. In the 2004 WMDC study, VERTIC notes that
its previous research on national implementation revealed that many states parties lacked knowledge of their
Article IV obligations as well as the necessary resources and expertise to comply with the article.
Offers of assistance were made in 2003 and subsequent years to help achieve the objective that all states
parties should have effective national implementation measures in place. States parties, however, will have
collectively to move beyond exhortation and limited offers of assistance. This will require states parties to
develop a comprehensive database of legislation, regulations, and other measures in each state party in order
to identify the baseline of national implementation across the BWC. To achieve this basic element a decision
will be required to mandate all states parties to lodge copies of all their relevant national implementation
measures in a central repository. VERTIC recommends that states parties establish a legal advisers’ network
(LAN) to:
• Promote the obligation to adopt appropriate implementation measures for the convention;
• Establish a database of national implementation measures for the BWC among its states parties;
• Review all reported and submitted national implementation measures passed to the LAN and its central
contact point;
-
1�• Liaise with legal officers in other international organizations working on issues related and relevant to the
implementation of the BWC;
• Devise, based on experience of states parties and other available data such as the report to the UN 1540
Committee, minimum requirements for national implementation measures;
• Establish a database of legal advisers in states parties;
• Develop and agree a programme of work to provide assistance to any state party that so requests it, to be
completed either bilaterally, regionally, through regional or other organizations, or through collective efforts
by states parties;
• Organize meetings, workshops and training programmes to permit each state party to undertake as much
of this work as possible at the national level, in accordance with their own constitutional processes; and
• Develop templates of national implementation for consideration by different types of states parties depend-
ing on their requirements.
The LAN would not be a panel or fixed organization. Its membership would be determined by states parties.
Members of the LAN may organize on a regional basis, with tacit agreement to work with states parties in their
own region as a priority. A website would act as a central information point for states parties. Members of the
LAN could co-ordinate and discuss their activities at meetings of states parties or on the margins of other
meetings of BWC states parties. A meeting of LAN members may be necessary, but the objective should not
be to agree on a single model of implementation. Minimum criteria will have to be agreed but, in the light of
the politico-legal issues, all states parties will have to do this either at the Review Conference or in a subsequent
meeting.
A confidence-building measures unitIn an attempt to alleviate the lack of returns under the CBMs Canada prepared and circulated a guide to help
states to complete the CBM forms. Thus far, there has been only a modest increase in the rate of returns. This
national effort indicates that inertia in states parties may be a bigger problem than the administrative difficul-
ties of completing the returns.
The functions of the CBM unit would vary in a number of categories: administrative, facilitative, review
and assessment. The priority of the CBM unit would be to improve the administration of the existing system.
-
1�The role of the CBM unit would encompass: ensuring each state party has the CBM forms; confirming receipt
of the submitted information from each state party; issuing reminders to states parties that have not submitted
a return by the due date; issuing reminders at agreed periods thereafter, for example, every month until Decem-
ber of the calendar year; collating the returns, and distributing them to states parties, including circulation
electronically to returning states parties.
Its facilitating role might entail practical assistance with preparing the CBM before submission in order
to ensure the correct information is collected for inclusion on the forms. This work would take the training
contained in the Canadian guide one step further by facilitating assistance between states parties. To support
this the experts in the CBM unit could maintain a website providing information on the CBMs as well as on
the assistance available to support submissions. A further facilitating role would be translation of the CBMs into
the six languages of the UN, or at least into one common language for all, before distribution to states parties.
A periodic review function carried out by experts could apprise states parties at each review conference of
whether further decisions are necessary. The experts would make recommendations to states parties for adop-
tion. This approach follows past practice—an expert group devised the modalities of the information exchange
in 1987 and a small group of experts worked at the Third Review Conference to bring back ideas to the president
for consideration by the states parties during the review conference itself.
Achieving any agreement on analysis or assessment functions for the CBM unit will be difficult, but assess-
ment could be developed in a number of ways. States parties could consider the following as part of an assessment
process:
• States parties would agree to send their returns electronically or allow BWC staff to convert them into
electronic documents, and for them to be entered into a database accessible to states parties. The database
of information would only be available to those states parties that had returned a CBM for the previous
calendar year;
• States parties would nominate experts to serve on the CBM unit for specified periods of time. All states
parties would receive the existing compilation of CBMs in hard copy form. All submitting states parties would
receive copies of the information in hard copy and electronic form;
• States parties that have submitted CBMs would be asked to provide a basic analysis of the CBMs, including
identified basic and general information;
-
1�• The Depositaries, the UNDDA, or the states parties would be requested to contact non-returning states
parties and request a return in accordance with their undertakings to the BWC.
A CBM unit established by states parties may also draw on other public sources of information. The principal
aim should be to engage states parties in dialogue about discrepancies between previous submissions and
current data, anomalies between other publicly available data and that reported under the CBM, or any lack of
clarity in the submission. Taken together these measures would enhance the transparency of the CBM process.
A BW investigation and inspection mechanismThe article on investigations is widely viewed as the principal compliance mechanism in the BWC. At the
Meeting of Experts in 2004 many states parties voiced their support for updating the United Nations Secretary-
General’s mechanism for investigating alleged use of biological or toxin weapons. More recently, the adoption
of the United Nations Counter-Terrorism strategy noted that member states ‘also encourage the Secretary-
General to update the roster of experts and laboratories, as well as the technical guidelines and procedures,
available to him for the timely and efficient investigation of alleged use’. States parties to the BWC should
strongly support the efforts of the Secretary-General in this task because they have no recourse to their own
mechanism and the Security Council has never developed usable procedures for action under Article VI of the
convention. Updating and strengthening the Secretary-General’s mechanism is one method of providing a more
effective biological weapons-related investigation procedure in the future. While updating the Secretary-General’s
mechanism offers some relief to the lack of mechanisms under the BWC, the authority of the Secretary-General
does not extend to issues related to producing, developing, or stockpiling biological or toxin weapons. It is in
this area where states parties should consider acting and developing guidelines for inspections in the future.
The objective of states parties should be to reach agreement on a detailed, but flexible, consultation proce-
dure for issues related to compliance with the obligations under Articles I and III of the convention. This could
be done through the establishment of an expert group or as an identified topic of a future meeting of experts
or meeting of states parties. Any meeting should consider:
• Expanding the agreements and additional understandings on consultative meetings;
• Establishing guidelines for the initiation of consultation procedures;
-
1�• Identifying the type of information required to support any stated concern about activities relating to the
convention;
• Outlining in greater detail the procedures for convening a Formal Consultative Meeting;
• Agreeing timelines for the conduct of consultations;
• Developing provision for the use of agreed experts and/or the good offices of international organizations
to facilitate consultation procedures;
• Drafting the modalities for voluntary on-site assessments of facilities, sites, or laboratories;
• The modalities for making the information available to other states parties or the United Nations Security
Council as appropriate;
• The lessons learned from the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), the United Nations Moni-
toring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), and other appropriate mechanisms; and
• Training and national capacity building for identified experts, including liaison with the FAO, Interpol, the
OIE, the OPCW, the WHO and rostered experts under the Secretary-General’s mechanism.
The Review Conference and beyondStates parties will need to continue meeting and working in a variety of forums between 2007 and 2011. The
review conference in 2006 should be viewed as a ‘pit stop’ on the continued evolution of the convention.
Where further work on effective implementation of the convention is required, states parties should not shy away
from acknowledging that reality. Recognizing that work needs to be done is not a sign of the failure of the BWC:
it is a recognition of the reality of treaty implementation. In 2006 states parties should:
• Agree to establish national authorities to work with the BWC staff and facilitate contact between states
parties;
• Establish a budget for the employment of around four or five staff members under the existing BWC staff
model;
• Allocate to the BWC staff additional responsibilities to improve the administration of the convention and its
meetings, and to facilitate more effective implementation of the decisions of the states parties;
• Promote the existing BWC website with a view to developing the site as a portal for information related to
all aspects of the BWC;
-
1�• Agree a mandate for the creation of a number of subsidiary networks made up of experts appointed by
states parties—for convention implementation advisers, a scientific and technical advisers’ network, a legal
advisers’ network, a CBM unit and an expert group to consider the consultation and co-operation mech-
anisms under Article V of the convention;
• Develop and agree a further programme of work to enhance implementation of the convention covering
the following issues: scientific and technological developments; implementation measures and liaison with
the UN 1540 Committee; national implementation measures, including the provision of assistance to states
parties, and the development of agreed minimum criteria for national implementing measures; review the
CBMs and the creation of the CBM unit; a commitment to support the investigation mechanism of the
Secretary-General, and an express commitment to provide the Secretary-General with the contact details of
experts required as soon as possible; detailed consideration of the support to be offered to any state party
attacked with biological or toxin weapons, or threatened with an attack by such weapons; closer co-operation
with the OPCW where appropriate to maximize the achievement of the objective of a total prohibition on
the use, development, production and stockpiling of chemical and biological weapons; an express commit-
ment for all states parties to the BWC to ratify or accede to the CWC no later than December 2007; a
concerted effort for the withdrawal of all remaining reservations to the 1925 Geneva Protocol; consideration
of the ways in which states parties can facilitate the work of the FAO, the OIE and the WHO, particularly
in the establishment of an effective and complete global disease surveillance network; development of means
to enhance states parties’ abilities to meet the standards for laboratory safety and security established by the
WHO as well as other relevant guidelines, Good Manufacturing Practice and Good Laboratory Practice;
the establishment of an action plan on universality and its implementation between 2007 and 2011, with
a view to having no less than 185 states parties to the BWC by 2010; and agree to hold a further review
conference no later than 2011.
These proposals may appear ambitious, but they all have their origins either in existing proposals before states
parties or similar mechanisms that have been agreed by states parties previously or in comparable agreements.
In 2006 states parties are in a position to put their differences behind them and develop a new strategy to
enhance the implementation of the convention.
-
�0
Introduction
A simple, international ban on biological weapons alone is not enough.1
In December 2004 the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission (WMDC) published the study, Enhancing
BWC Implementation: A Modular Approach, which was prepared by the Verification Research, Training and
Information Centre (VERTIC).2 In the study VERTIC identifies a range of mechanisms that could improve
the implementation of the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC). The mechanisms could also fulfil
certain verification and implementation activities for states parties. These mechanisms were deliberately designed
to be something short of a fully fledged international organization. Building on experience and on the modalities
of other international agreements, including the mechanisms put in place to perform tasks for other treaty
regimes, VERTIC proposed a modular approach to developing institutional support for the BWC. The modular
approach was not designed to substitute for the verification mechanisms that states parties to the BWC attempted
to develop between 1995 and 2001; that is, a legally binding verification protocol. Instead, the measures were
intended to rectify some of the weaknesses identified in the implementation of the convention.
The underlying theme of the 2004 WMDC study is that states parties to the BWC do not face a simplistic
choice between two opposing strategies: either pursuing a legally binding verification agreement to the con-
vention, or doing nothing until the political climate changed sufficiently to permit new negotiations on such
an agreement. Instead, states parties should seek to strengthen implementation of the convention wherever
and whenever they can. At the heart of the modular mechanisms approach is a return to the evolutionary,
incremental method of strengthening the BWC.
This study updates the 2004 WMDC study and examines its ideas in greater detail. This new study assesses
the possible mandates for, and the responsibilities and requirements of, the modular mechanisms that have
been identified to strengthen the biological weapons regime.
-
�1The biological weapons regimeThe biological weapons regime continues to evolve. Since 1972 it has consisted of the 1925 Geneva Protocol—
prohibiting the use of biological, chemical and toxin weapons—and the Biological Weapons Convention. Since
1993 the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) has also formed one aspect of the biological weapons regime,
because of the overlap in relation to toxins.3 This overlap means that the regime consists of a panoply of agree-
ments, mechanisms and measures taken by states, and to an extent other actors, to counter the threat posed
by biological weapons (BW). It is beyond the scope of this report to cover all the measures that contribute to
the biological weapons regime; the principal focus here is the BWC. The importance of the 1925 Geneva Pro-
tocol cannot be overstated. It prohibits the use in war of chemical and bacteriological methods of warfare. The
1972 BWC does not explicitly prohibit the use of biological or toxin weapons, but does prohibit their develop-
ment, production, stockpiling, acquisition, or transfer by its states parties. Furthermore, the states parties to
the BWC are unanimous in their agreement ‘that the use by the States Parties, in any way and under any
circumstances, of microbial or other biological agents or toxins, that is not consistent with prophylactic, pro-
tective or other peaceful purposes, is effectively a violation of Article I of the convention’.4 There are also other
supporting elements, including:
• the United Nations Secretary-General’s investigation mechanism for alleged or suspected use of chemical,
biological and toxin weapons;
• national, regional and international activities—as well as activities by like-minded states, groups or orga-
nizations—such as the requirement for export control under United Nations Security Council Resolution
(UNSCR) 1540 (2004);
• the co-ordination of export controls under the Australia Group;
• the Proliferation Security Initiative; and
• the activities under the G8 Global Partnership.
The threat posed by biological weapons is not static.5 States need to be aware of the expanding width of
the threat spectrum. This is an important consideration in terms of scientific and technological developments,
and the measures implemented by states parties to address the potential threat. As a guide, the conclusion of
the 2006 report of the US National Academies, Globalization, Biosecurity, and the Future of the Life Sciences
indicates that:
-
��The growing concern regarding novel types of threat agents does not diminish the importance of naturally
occurring threat agents—for example, the ‘classic’ category A select agents—or ‘conventionally’ genetically
engineered pathogenic organisms. However, it does mandate the need to adopt a broader perspective in assessing
the threat, focusing not on a narrow list of pathogens, but on a much wider spectrum that includes biologically
active chemical agents. The potential threat spectrum is thus exceptionally broad and continuously evolving—in
some ways predictably, in other ways unexpectedly.6
The globalization of the biotechnology and life science research and industrial communities presents the
opportunity to significantly increase the well-being of humankind, but also has the potential to place biological
weapons at the disposal of many more actors: states, terrorist groups and individuals. No state, and certainly
no state party to the BWC, is now immune from the threat posed by biological weapons because of simple
geography or the lack of technological capabilities in other states. Again, as the 2006 report of the US National
Academies underlines, ‘[t]o a considerable extent, new advances in the life sciences and related technologies
are being generated not just domestically [in the US], but also internationally’.7 The potential threat posed
by biological weapons is global in scale, and countering and minimizing this threat requires action beyond
national borders.
The agents, toxins, materials, equipment and technology are dual use in their nature; that is, they can be used
for peaceful purposes, such as the development, production and delivery of vaccines, or for hostile purposes,
such as the development, production and dissemination of Bacillus anthracis (the bacteria causing anthrax).
This fact means accepting that the practical problems posed by biological disarmament—that is, how states
effectively implement and enforce their legal obligations not to use, develop, produce, stockpile, acquire, possess,
or transfer biological or toxin weapons and to prohibit and prevent their own nationals from conducting any
of these activities—cannot be resolved through the simple existence of a convention or treaty. The legal measures
taken to address the threat of biological weapons have to be implemented. That requires the constant attention
of states parties, the international community, intergovernmental organizations, civil society and non-governmental
organizations. The proposals contained in this report are intended to support and enhance the continuous imple-
mentation efforts required in the day-to-day management of the legal commitment to biological disarmament.
Between 20 November and 8 December 2006 states parties to the BWC will convene for the Sixth Review
Conference of the convention. Rather than attempt to define what constitutes success or failure in 2006, this
report is concerned with the future health of the convention.
-
��The historical contextSince the negotiation of the CWC, and its entry into force in 1997, the BWC has been routinely derided as
a weak agreement. Comparative assessments of the strengths or weaknesses of a treaty regime are relative. In
the early 1970s the BWC was a beacon of disarmament; and after its entry into force in 1975 the convention
was routinely held up as a model of the kind of disarmament that could be achieved through multilateral
negotiation. Times change, and the vicissitudes of the BWC treaty regime, to use the terminology of Nicholas
Sims, are well documented.8 By the mid-1990s the situation in the BWC was aptly described by the British
Minister present at the Fourth Review Conference in 1996.9
A general perception held that the biological weapons problem was solved; that it did not present a real risk
or threat; and that it did not merit a place on serious arms control agendas. . . . But over the last decade, we
have seen these comfortable assumptions overturned.
Efforts to strengthen the BWC did not turn out as many had hoped. In 1994 states parties established an
Ad Hoc Group (AHG) to draft proposals to strengthen the convention, which were to be included, as appro-
priate, in a legally binding instrument—a BWC protocol.10 Negotiations under the AHG began in 1995. By
the time of the twenty-fourth session of the AHG in July and August 2001 the Chairman of the negotiations,
Ambassador Tibor Tóth (Hungary), had developed a compromise text—often referred to as the ‘composite text’—
to address the many different views on issues related to verification and compliance.11 States parties were heavily
divided on how and where to make compromises with each other in order to reach agreement on the final
version of the BWC protocol. When the US withdrew its support for the protocol in July 2001 the negotiations
came abruptly to a halt.
From the perspective of 2006 the principal issue is the divisions that the collapse of the negotiations created
among states parties about how to continue their efforts to strengthen the biological weapons regime. While
some states parties favoured restarting negotiations on a legally binding instrument, others were willing to
embrace less ambitious mechanisms which sought to reach agreement where it was possible to do so.
The pragmatists were successful.12 The path taken by the states parties was to continue discussions in the
BWC context on specific problems related to implementation. This was the outcome of the resumed session
of the Fifth Review Conference in 2002 when states parties agreed the following:13
-
��(a) To hold three annual meetings of the States Parties of one week duration each year commencing in 2003
until the Sixth Review Conference, to be held not later than the end of 2006, to discuss, and promote common
understanding and effective action on:
i. the adoption of necessary national measures to implement the prohibitions set forth in the Convention,
including the enactment of penal legislation;
ii. national mechanisms to establish and maintain the security and oversight of pathogenic microorganisms
and toxins;
iii. enhancing international capabilities for responding to, investigating and mitigating the effects of
cases of alleged use of biological or toxin weapons or suspicious outbreaks of disease;
iv. strengthening and broadening national and international institutional efforts and existing mech
anisms for the surveillance, detection, diagnosis and combating of infectious diseases affecting humans,
animals, and plants;
v. the content, promulgation, and adoption of codes of conduct for scientists.
(b) All meetings, both of experts and of States Parties, will reach any conclusions or results by consensus.
(c) Each meeting of the States Parties will be prepared by a two week meeting of experts. The topics for consider
ation at each annual meeting of States Parties will be as follows: items i and ii will be considered in 2003; items
iii and iv in 2004; item v in 2005. The first meeting will be chaired by a representative of the Eastern Group,
the second by a representative of the Group of NonAligned and Other States, and the third by a representative
of the Western Group.
(d) The meetings of experts will prepare factual reports describing their work.
(e) The Sixth Review Conference will consider the work of these meetings and decide on any further action.
There is no disguising the fact that the new programme of work was a minimal outcome. It was not embraced
enthusiastically by all the states parties. This is demonstrated both by the statements made after the adoption
of the decision to proceed with the programme of work, and by subsequent statements made by states parties
at each of the meetings of states parties in 2003, 2004 and 2005.14 Despite low expectations the intersessional
programme of work has proved successful in a number of ways. Together with developments in other areas
-
��of the regime, such as UNSCR 1540, adopted on 28 April 2004, and the new World Health Organization
(WHO) International Health Regulations—which are due to be implemented in 2007 but can be applied by
states parties immediately—the low-level and focused discussions of the states parties to the BWC mean that
the convention is in better health, at least politically, in 2006 than it was in 2001 or 2002.
As the Sixth Review Conference approaches, the direction of policy among some states parties is already
known. The 25 member states of the European Union (EU) have already indicated their support for ‘specific,
practical and feasible proposals for the effective enhancement of the implementation’ of the convention through
the adoption of the Common Position of March 2006.15 Included in the EU proposals for the review conference
are a commitment to work for a further intersessional programme of work between 2007 and 2011, a further
review conference in 2007, and the promotion of: (a) universal accession to the convention by all states that
remain outside the BWC; (b) full compliance with the convention; (c) strengthening national implementation
measures; (d ) increased exchange of information under the confidence-building measures (CBMs); (e) com-
pliance with obligations under UNSCR 1540 (2004); (f ) the role of the G8 Global Partnership programmes
to support disarmament; and (g) consideration of the outcome of the work programme completed between
2003 and 2005. Australia, Canada and New Zealand have indicated their support for ‘pragmatic steps that
can achieve practical results’ including national implementation, CBMs, implementation support measures,
and annual meetings of the states parties.16 Furthermore, a group of Latin American states—Argentina,
Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Mexico, Peru and Uruguay—have indi-
cated their willingness to support an incremental process to strengthen the convention.17 Altogether, before
the convening of the review conference, almost 40 states parties have given their strong support to a further
pragmatic and incremental programme of activities and mechanisms that would enhance implementation of
the BWC.
The context for the Sixth Review ConferenceThe BWC is a living document. Like all treaties it requires attention from its states parties. First and foremost,
its states parties must implement their obligations. For example, Article IV of the convention requires states
parties to ‘take any necessary measures to prohibit and prevent’ the activities proscribed by the convention. States
parties are required to do this ‘in accordance with their constitutional processes’ which, due to the complex-
ity of effecting the prohibitions, necessitates that action is required beyond the simple act of ratification or
-
��accession. The fact that the convention is a living document was recognized by states parties by the insertion
of a requirement to review the operation of the convention under its Article XII ‘with a view to assuring that
the purposes of the preamble and the provisions of the convention. . . . are being realized. Such review shall
take into account any new scientific and technological developments relevant to the convention’.18 In addition
to their legal obligations, states parties have agreed a number of additional understandings with regard to the
implementation of the BWC. These are contained in successive final declarations and decisions from each of
the five review conferences to date.19 The CBMs, for example, are part of an agreed exchange of information
between states parties designed ‘to prevent or reduce the occurrence of ambiguities, doubts, and suspicions’.
While the additional understandings are not legally binding, they are politically binding on all states parties.
The importance of these understandings is that they enable the implementation of the convention to evolve
through consensus agreement in order to meet emerging challenges. In 1996, for example, states parties noted
that individuals and sub-national groups should be prevented from acquiring agents and toxins for other than
peaceful purposes. States parties do not take such decisions lightly and reaching agreement in 2006 will not
be a simple task. The task before states parties, however, is neither impossible, nor as difficult as the task they
faced in 2001 and 2002.
Any review conference is governed by its rules of procedure. The power of states parties is not without limit
in the review conference setting. At a review conference, however, states parties to the BWC can agree on or
decide to undertake a wide range of activities, providing there is consensus agreement among them. Taking
previous review conferences as a guide, states parties may decide:
• that particular activities are prohibited by the convention even though such activities are not explicitly men-
tioned in the text of the BWC, such as their decision in 1996 that use of biological or toxin weapons is a
violation of the convention;
• that in carrying out their obligations certain precautions need to be taken, such as the protection of popu-
lations and the environment during any destruction of biological weapon stockpiles, as they did in 1980;
• that information on implementation of the convention, such as notification of the destruction of any stock-
piles of biological weapons, could enhance confidence in the BWC, as they did in 1996; or that information
should be exchanged between states parties, such as the CBMs agreed in 1986 and 1991;
-
��• that the scope of the convention is sufficiently comprehensive to remain applicable to new potential threats
which were unknown at the time of the convention’s entry into force, as they have done under Article I at
each review conference up to 1996;
• that the implementation of certain articles is of particular importance, such as the decisions in 1986, 1991
and 1996 concerning legislative, administrative, and other measures to implement Article IV;
• to establish specific mechanisms to facilitate the operation of the convention, such as the agreement on con-
sultative meetings, as they did in 1980, 1986, 1991 and 1996;
• that assistance will be required from external bodies, such as the UNDDA in the case of CBMs, in order to
implement effectively the decisions of states parties;
• that deadlines and agreed timelines can be established by the states parties for the fulfilment of specific tasks
such as, for example, the annual submission of information by 15 April each year;
• that mechanisms established in other forums, such the Secretary-General’s investigation mechanism for chem-
ical and biological weapons use, are relevant to the convention, as they did in 1986, 1991 and 1996;
• that other intergovernmental organizations may be of assistance to states parties in particular circumstances,
such as the recognition in 1991 and 1996 of the role of the WHO in the provision of assistance to states
parties in the event of the use of biological or toxin weapons;
• that other international agreements, such as the 1925 Geneva Protocol and the 1993 Chemical Weapons Con-
vention, are relevant to the BWC and its implementation;
• that carrying out specific measures would contribute to the fulfilment of obligations under the convention,
which has occurred with respect to Article X at each review conference to date;
• that additional conferences and meetings are required to ensure the objectives and purpose of the convention
are being met, as in the decision to hold review conferences since 1986;
• that states parties have responsibilities not explicitly written into the convention, such as persuading non-
states parties to ratify or accede to the BWC without delay;
• that action by particular groups of states parties to implement the convention, such as in a regional forum, is
to be welcomed, as in the decisions made in 1991 and 1996 with regard to accessions to the BWC;
• that the states parties may ask certain groups to agree the modalities of actual decisions, such as the decision
in 1987 to establish the group of experts meeting on CBMs;
-
��• that particular issues may be carried out through the establishment of different types of groups, meetings
and conferences, such the study on the scientific and technical aspects of verification under the ad hoc group
of governmental experts (Verification Experts, VEREX) between 1992 and 1993, the Special Conference in
1994, the Ad Hoc Group (AHG), and the Meetings of States Parties between 2003 and 2005; and
• that future meetings of states parties can be asked to carry out specific activities, such as considering the
effectiveness of the CBMs in 1991, or when the Sixth Review Conference was mandated to consider the work
of the BWC meetings between 2003 and 2005 and decide on any further action.
Overall, states parties have been pragmatic and flexible in their approach to implementation of the BWC
and, more importantly, their collective effort to ensure that the convention’s objectives and purpose are still
being met 15, 20 and 25 years after its entry into force. As has been noted elsewhere, ‘despite the divisions and
a residue of bitterness, a large majority of states parties have been prepared to put their political differences
aside and simply get on with making the best of the limited options available for collective efforts to strengthen
the convention’.20 This approach should continue to guide states parties in 2006 and beyond.
VERTIC maintains that a legally binding additional agreement to the BWC is necessary in order to provide
a comprehensive verification, compliance and implementation framework for the convention in the twenty-
first century. Reaching such an agreement is not, however, politically feasible at this time. States parties remain
divided on the issue of verification and the existence of the AHG, as well as the usefulness of any verification
mechanisms for the convention. Political realities dictate that verification remains a longer term goal which states
parties should continue to work towards.
At the Review Conference in 2006, states parties must maintain their pursuit of a pragmatic approach to
achieving the best possible outcome available to them. While the choices states parties make in that regard will
determine the immediate success or failure of the Sixth Review Conference, it is equally important to note
that the review conference itself is not just a once-in-five-years three-week long window of opportunity that
can be seized or missed.
A review conference is now part of a broader process under the BWC and the convention itself is part of a
wider regime against biological weapons. In the years between 1986 and 2006—the period between the Second
and the Sixth review conferences—there have been only three years when states parties did not meet formally
in one forum or another: 1988, 1989 and 1990. Groups of experts have met in 1987, 1992, 1993, 2003, 2004
-
��and 2005; the AHG met 24 times between 1995 and 2001; a Special Conference was convened in 1994; meetings
of states parties have been held in 2003, 2004 and 2005; and review conferences were held in 1986, 1991, 1996,
2001/2002 and 2006. If review conferences were a once-in-five-years opportunity for states parties to consider
the implementation of the convention in the first ten years of the life of the BWC, since that time they have
been supplemented by other meetings. This should continue: not least because a three-week review conference
will be unable to address adequately all the issues that will require detailed consideration and action by the states
parties. A pragmatic approach in 2006 would aim to reach agreement on strengthening the convention where
it is possible to do so, and recognize that the 2006 Review Conference is only one meeting among many.
The approach of VERTIC is therefore pragmatic. The proposals made in the remainder of this report each
stand alone on their own merits: together, they offer synergistic benefits and interconnections that would be of
even greater benefit. States parties are therefore encouraged to look for connections between the proposals, where
small additions will reap much larger rewards for implementation of the convention.
The report suggests ideas for modular mechanisms and recommends either their adoption by states parties
in 2006 or further exploratory work on the ideas they contain between the Sixth and Seventh Review Confer-
ences. The mechanisms are:
• a network of national authorities and contact points;
• a support staff function provided through the BWC staff;
• convention implementation advisers;
• a scientific and technical advisers’ network (STAN);
• a legal advisers’ network (LAN);
• a CBM unit; and
• a BW investigation and inspection mechanism.
-
�0
National authorities and secretariat staffThe BWC relies on its states parties to implement the convention without any formal, legally binding, oversight
by other states parties or any international organization that is entirely devoted to the convention. Implemen-
tation of the BWC has, however, changed during the course of its life—both nationally and internationally.
The Depositaries of the convention—Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States—are charged
with administrative oversight of the BWC. They receive instruments of ratification and accession from other
states, inform all signatory states and states parties of any new ratifications and accessions, and receive other
notices such as requests to convene a review conference, a special conference, or a consultative meeting. The role
of the Depositaries is largely administrative. The three Depositary governments have no power to take or imple-
ment decisions on behalf of the other states parties.
The United Nations Security Council is given the role of investigating any complaint lodged with it by a state
party in relation to another state party acting in breach of its obligations. The Security Council can decide
to carry out an investigation into the complaint, states parties undertake to co-operate with any investigation
initiated by the Security Council, and the Security Council is required to inform states parties of the results
of any investigation.
Since the BWC entered into force, decisions taken by states parties at review conferences and other meetings
have placed additional commitments on other entities—most notably, the United Nations Secretary-General.
The Secretary-General has been asked to allocate the staff resources and other requirements necessary to assist
the effective implementation of the decisions taken by states parties at review conferences. Thus, it is the
UNDDA, and not the Depositary governments, that receives, collates and distributes the CBMs each year.
Review conferences are supported by the staff provided by the UNDDA and successive review conferences have
also asked the Secretary-General to collate information annually on their behalf—such as information on the
implementation of Article X of the convention—or to put issues that the states parties to the BWC have
-
�1identified as being of particular interest to them on the agenda of other meetings and bodies, such as exami-
nation of the institutional mechanisms to facilitate peaceful co-operation under Article X.
In a different context, UN member states under General Assembly resolutions, and under UNSCR 620
(1988), have encouraged the Secretary-General to carry out investigations into allegations of possible or suspected
use of chemical, biological, or toxin weapons that entail a violation of the 1925 Geneva Protocol. The Security
Council has not devised a separate mechanism for any investigation of complaints received under Article VI
of the BWC. States parties therefore rely on the Secretary-General to investigate any future allegation of the
use of biological weapons brought to its attention by a state party.
In addition to the support requested from the UNDDA, over the past decade states parties have also paid
the UNDDA to supply additional staff to support the administration of the various meetings and to facilitate
the implementation of previous decisions. This practice began under the auspices of support to the Chairman
of the AHG with funding provided year-on-year when the budget allocation for meetings of the AHG was
determined. The arrangement continued through to the Fifth Review Conference in 2002, at which states
parties provided the meeting of experts and meetings of states parties between 2003 and 2005 with funding
for three years of conference support and secretarial support for the Chair of each meeting and the meetings
themselves. In December 2005, when the provisional allocation of the budget for the Sixth Review Confer-
ence was agreed by the states parties, the use of specific UNDDA-appointed staff to support the BWC was
continued through to the end of 2006.
While the practice of using specifically appointed staff may have emerged in the mid-1990s, in 1986 Aus-
tralia, the Netherlands and New Zealand proposed during the debate on CBMs that states parties should
seek the view of the Secretary-General on the most appropriate measures to facilitate the data exchange. One
method identified was ‘a small secretariat under United Nations auspices’.21 The idea of a small secretariat for
the BWC inside the UN was also supported by Yugoslavia and by the UK in 1991 at the Third Review Con-
ference. The latter proposal—while unsuccessful in 1991—most closely resembles the current arrangements,
whereby the costs of the additional resources used by the states parties are allocated in accordance with the cost-
sharing arrangements agreed at previous review conferences and subsequent meetings.22
The ‘small secretariat’ may not have been acceptable in 1986 or 1991, but the idea and the terminology have
since gained traction among the states parties. A ‘secretariat’ can, of course, mean many things. Generically,
the idea was to facilitate the meetings of states parties and the information exchange. The term ‘secretariat’
-
��almost certainly had no political overtones in 1986, but was instead convenient and readily identifiable short-
hand for the conference and meeting support offered by the UN and by its staff in the DDA. Of late—with
the emergence of the Technical Secretariat in the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
(OPCW) and its equivalent, the Provisional Technical Secretariat (PTS), at the Comprehensive Nuclear Test
Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO), as well as the long-standing International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Secretariat—the term ‘Secretariat’ (with or without a capital ‘S’) has become synonymous with treaty imple-
mentation organizations. The term therefore does now have political connotations.
VERTIC has no direct interest in the terminology used by states parties to define or describe the admin-
istrative and other functions carried out by individuals working together under the instructions of BWC states
parties. It is the responsibilities and tasks given to these individuals—and the manner in which they carry out
and fulfil these tasks—which is most important to the convention and its health.
Recognizing, however, that the term secretariat may be misconstrued or have political overtones for some
states parties in the BWC context, in this report its use is generic, insomuch as it refers to the administrative
office of a treaty or other agreement. Below, the term BWC staff is used to refer to the current and future
(proposed) arrangements to provide institutional support to the convention. This term is used because it reflects
current practice—the states parties pay, in accordance with their cost-sharing arrangements, for the UNDDA
to employ a small number of staff to support and facilitate their meetings.
The current state of playThe states parties to the BWC have, as a result of the abovementioned decisions and established practice, put
themselves in a position where they rely on the activities of three governments—Russia, the UK and the US—and
the continued willingness and ability of the United Nations Secretary-General to undertake important activi-
ties that support the operation of the convention on their behalf. States parties had little direct control over
how those decisions were carried out or implemented on their behalf until the mid-1990s when, through the
various Chairs of meetings of the states parties, they were able to direct the small group of BWC staff to carry
out certain functions.
This arrangement is highly unusual in the early years of the twenty-first century. Under the 1968 Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the IAEA has a recognized role with regard to the safeguards contained in
-
��Article III of the NPT, and this supplements the activities of the Depositary governments and the UN in the
administration of the treaty. Both the CWC and the 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT)
established an Organization—the OPCW and the CTBTO, respectively—‘to achieve the object and purpose
of this treaty, to ensure the implementation of its provisions, including those for international verification of
compliance with it, and to provide a forum for consultation and co-operation among States Parties’ in the
case of the CTBTO and ‘to achieve the object and purpose of this convention, to ensure the implementation
of its provisions, including those for international verification of compliance with it, and to provide a forum
for consultation and co-operation among States Parties’ in the case of the OPCW.
The BWC is now almost alone in neither having recognized national entities or contact points among states
parties nor possessing some kind of agreed secretariat and implementation support to assist states parties with
the implementation of the convention.
In terms of treaty diplomacy, the contact between states parties is largely foreign ministry to foreign ministry,
as befits the diplomatic nature of the periodic conferences or meetings of states parties. Regulating, admini-
stering and overseeing the materials, technology, equipment and knowledge required to develop, produce, or
use biological weapons involves significant dual-use issues. The management of the biological weapons regime
therefore goes beyond the foreign ministry of each state party. A rudimentary assessment of the list of partici-
pants from states parties at any meeting of the BWC indicates clearly that a delegation is made up of represen-
tatives from foreign ministries, ministries of defence, staff from trade and industry sectors of governments,
scientific and technical experts, and public health experts, among others. This multi-departmental approach
illustrates the breadth of issues that require consideration in undertaking and managing the implementation
of the BWC.
Looking back over three decades, the most striking aspect is the extent to which the states parties have
permitted the burden to fall exclusively on their own shoulders in an ad hoc manner. While the UN Secretary-
General was asked to oversee the receipt, collation and distribution of the CBMs submissions, the UNDDA
has no formal role in the implementation of the convention. Administrative support for meetings has grown
organically, with currently two to three staff members employed by the UNDDA to support the meetings of
the convention’s states parties. BWC staff are not a permanent fixture of the convention and the BWC will
revert back to relying solely on the three Depositary governments, the Secretary-General, and the Security
Council, together with any support individual states parties choose to provide, at the end of 2006 unless
-
��states parties decide, and financial arrangements are agreed, to continue the employment of staff to administer
the convention.
Furthermore, administering and facilitating the decisions of the states parties is insufficient on its own.
Support staff must have contacts to work with in the states parties, and, because offers of technical and imple-
mentation assistance have increased in the past five years, states parties should have the ability to conduct
direct discussions with the individuals or ministries responsible for implementing the convention in each
state party. National and international contact points are a prerequisite for more effective implementation of
the convention.
It is the lack of permanent, semi-permanent, or temporary support together with the inability of states parties
to easily co-ordinate with each other that forms the core of the ‘institutional deficit’23 of the convention.
The institutional deficit of the BWC and its wider regime has been recognized for over two decades. As others
have noted, since 1972 the lack of attention to the implementation and administration of the convention and
the broader regime has become ever more problematic.24 Legal undertakings are not self-implementing and the
expectation that the BWC would somehow miraculously implement itself has proved to be a serious mistake by
the states parties. According to the late Charles Flowerree—a senior US diplomat with great experience of dis-
armament diplomacy and treaty implementation—mechanisms are required to enable states parties to cope not
only with extraordinary events, but also with issues related to compliance, changing international conditions,
the necessity of interpreting treaty language over time or when ambiguities arise, dealing with new technological
developments, and developing implementing procedures.25 All these factors were in evidence in the first ten years
of the BWC’s existence. It is day-to-day implementation that requires at least some oversight: the recognition
that some officials will have to live with the convention and its obligations full-time, all of the time.26
Biological disarmament is not a completed task that was ticked off by the global community in 1975 on entry